• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

entremet

You wouldn't toast a NES cartridge
Member
Oct 26, 2017
60,436
This was a chilling hearing. Just shows how far right we've shifted in the judiciary. Worth a thread.

The context, do state abortion restrictions interfere with federal health care law for emergency care.

I still can't believe we have this shitty "tribunal" making decision on medical care.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Conservative Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical Wednesday that state abortion bans enacted after the overturning of Roe v. Wadeviolate federal health care law, though some also questioned the effects on emergency care for pregnant patients.

The case marks the first time the Supreme Court has considered the implications of a state ban since overturning the nationwide right to abortion. It comes from Idaho, which is among 14 states that now ban abortion at all stages of pregnancy with very limited exceptions.

The high court has already allowed the state ban to go into effect, even in medical emergencies, and it was unclear whether members of the conservative majority were swayed by the Biden administration's argument that federal law overrides the state in rare emergency cases where a pregnant patient's health is at serious risk.

In a very telling exchange, one of the Idaho prosecutors said that a women may have to lose organs before a medical needed abortion. WTF?

"Within these rare cases, there's a significant number where the woman's life is not in peril, but she's going to lose her reproductive organs. She's going to lose the ability to have children in the future unless an abortion takes place," said Justice Elena Kagan.

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, meanwhile, said she was "kind of shocked" that an attorney for Idaho appeared to hedge when asked whether the state would allow abortions in cases like those. Attorney Joshua N. Turner responded that doctors can use their "good faith" medical judgment under Idaho's life-saving exception, but Barrett continued to press: "What if the prosecutor thinks differently?"

ACB, not a fan of abortion, was even took back by that reply.

Alito also showed his ass as being one of the worse Justices too.

apnews.com

Supreme Court appears skeptical that state abortion bans conflict with federal health care law

Supreme Court is considering a case that will determine when doctors can provide abortions during medical emergencies in states with bans enacted after the high court’s sweeping decision overturning Roe v. Wade.
 

No Depth

Member
Oct 27, 2017
18,354
Yea listened to portions of this live and I had to stop during Alito's complete bullshit response. "Funny how nobody is discussing the unborn child here??" Over and over…it was smug and an obvious desire to reframe the debate.

(Paraphrasing) "How can doctors make decisions for those under their care if the threat of legal prosecution or worse is looking over their shoulder? What sort of judgement can be made in cases of emergencies if the state must be called upon for permission first?"

Alito: "Well…think of the unborn kiddos!"

It was tense and heart-wrenching how unfazed he appeared to be when discussing horrific examples of health issues mothers could face that require a life-saving abortion to survive. And when called out, he had that passive aggressive backtalk he often does. Just one of the scummiest judges on the planet.
 

PhaZe 5

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,461
The Republicans don't need the Presidency for much more than keeping the status quo in the courts at this point. They are having far more fun with zero red tape state side and blocking everything in congress.
 
OP
OP
entremet

entremet

You wouldn't toast a NES cartridge
Member
Oct 26, 2017
60,436
Yea listened to portions of this live and I had to stop during Alito's complete bullshit response. "Funny how nobody is discussing the unborn child here??" Over and over…it was smug and an obvious desire to reframe the debate.

It was tense and heart-wrenching how unfazed he appeared to be when discussing horrific examples of health issues mothers could face that require a life-saving abortion to survive. And when called out, he had that passive aggressive backtalk he often does. Just one of the scummiest judges on the planet.
Him and Thomas as the scummiest of the Robert's court and that's saying something!
 

scitek

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,106
A more accurate title would be: "Supreme Court seems skeptical that women should have rights."
 

SasaBassa

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,123
Not surprised based on the amount of crazy on the bench. Unqualified and activist idiots with no oversight save a divided and bitterly partisan Congress.

This Court is a huge reminder to not get complacent regarding every single election.

Let's hope this reminder sticks.
 

cameron

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
23,838
apnews.com

Emergency rooms refused to treat pregnant women, leaving one to miscarry in a lobby restroom

Complaints about pregnant women being turned away from emergency rooms spiked in the months after states began enacting strict abortion laws following the 2022 U.S.

WASHINGTON (AP) — One woman miscarried in the lobby restroom of a Texas emergency room as front desk staff refused to check her in. Another woman learned that her fetus had no heartbeat at a Florida hospital, the day after a security guard turned her away from the facility. And in North Carolina, a woman gave birth in a car after an emergency room couldn't offer an ultrasound. The baby later died.
Complaints that pregnant women were turned away from U.S. emergency rooms spiked in 2022 after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, federal documents obtained by The Associated Press reveal.
The cases raise alarms about the state of emergency pregnancy care in the U.S., especially in states that enacted strict abortion laws and sparked confusion around the treatment doctors can provide.
----------------
"It is shocking, it's absolutely shocking," said Amelia Huntsberger, an OB/GYN in Oregon. "It is appalling that someone would show up to an emergency room and not receive care -- this is inconceivable."
It's happened despite federal mandates that the women be treated.
Federal law requires emergency rooms to treat or stabilize patients who are in active labor and provide a medical transfer to another hospital if they don't have the staff or resources to treat them. Medical facilities must comply with the law if they accept Medicare funding.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday that could weaken those protections. The Biden administration has sued Idaho over its abortion ban, even in medical emergencies, arguing it conflicts with the federal law.
"No woman should be denied the care she needs," Jennifer Klein, director of the White House Gender Policy Council, said in a statement. "All patients, including women who are experiencing pregnancy-related emergencies, should have access to emergency medical care required under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA)."
----------------
Pregnant patients have "become radioactive to emergency departments" in states with extreme abortion restrictions, said Sara Rosenbaum, a George Washington University health law and policy professor.
"They are so scared of a pregnant patient, that the emergency medicine staff won't even look. They just want these people gone," Rosenbaum said.
Consider what happened to a woman who was nine months pregnant and having contractions when she arrived at the Falls Community Hospital in Marlin, Texas, in July 2022, a week after the Supreme Court's ruling on abortion. The doctor on duty refused to see her.
"The physician came to the triage desk and told the patient that we did not have obstetric services or capabilities," hospital staff told federal investigators during interviews, according to documents. "The nursing staff informed the physician that we could test her for the presence of amniotic fluid. However, the physician adamantly recommended the patient drive to a Waco hospital."
Investigators with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services concluded Falls Community Hospital broke the law.
Reached by phone, an administrator at the hospital declined to comment on the incident.
The investigation was one of dozens the AP obtained from a Freedom of Information Act request filed in February 2023 that sought all pregnancy-related EMTALA complaints the previous year. One year after submitting the request, the federal government agreed to release only some complaints and investigative documents filed across just 19 states. The names of patients, doctors and medical staff were redacted from the documents.
 

JB2448

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,009
Florida
Elections have consequences.

But her emails.

I'm so fucking tired. Caring more for the rights of the unborn than those of women. It's just so fucking fucked.
 

Latonin

Member
Sep 23, 2023
58
You have to have already made your decision and not be listening, or be an actual psychopath, to side with the state side abortion bans after hearing all of this.
 

kalindana

Member
Oct 28, 2018
3,186
Good op-ed from Moira Donegan:
www.theguardian.com

The US supreme court heard one of the most sadistic, extreme anti-abortion cases yet | Moira Donegan

Idaho’s law requires doctors to treat pregnant women’s health as disposable – and the loss of their lives as an acceptable risk
But what is really at stake is not the Emtala law – which, like all federal laws, is now subject to the distortion or selective nullification of the court, according to the conservative majority's whims. What was really at stake was the status of American women, who now have to beg before the courts not to face legally enforced medical negligence that will kill and maim them.

And what is at stake, too, is the extremism of the anti-choice movement, whose insistence on criminalizing life- and health-saving abortions can have no explanation other than bloodthirsty sadism. As the solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar – the Biden administration's lawyer at the supreme court – pointed out in oral arguments, there is no way to preserve the life of a nonviable embryo or fetus without preserving the life of the pregnant woman who carries it; Idaho's policy makes no sense if preserving fetal life is their goal. But the preservation of fetal life is not the anti-choice movement's goal. Their goal is to inflict as much suffering on women as possible.
How close to death does a woman have to be before she can qualify for an emergency abortion in a state that bans it? The anti-choice movement's argument is that women are receiving abortions when they are not close enough. None of this is hypothetical – it is not a question of suffering that could happen, possibly, in the future. These are needless, life-altering injuries that bans like Idaho's are inflicting on women right now.

The fact of the matter is that the distinction that the anti-choice movement seeks to make, between "life-saving" abortions and merely "health-saving" ones, is empirically impossible to determine: medical risks in pregnancy escalate quickly and unpredictably, meaning that a medical emergency can become life-or-death with little warning. It is unclear whether this fictional distinction is one the court will enshrine in law. But in another sense, the anti-choice movement has already won: the abortion debate now is being waged not on questions of women's equality, dignity, and self-determination – these have already been sacrificed by the law as supposedly incompatible with the status of pregnancy.
What is at stake now – what was being debated in court on Wednesday – is how much women can be forced to suffer, how much danger they can be placed in. The anti-choice movement, and its allies on the bench, have shown once again that there is no amount that will satisfy them.
 

Version 3.0

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,259
So if a pregnant woman goes to the hospital, Alito sees that as "fetus goes to hospital, transported by woman".
 
Dec 30, 2020
15,336
Fuck what the supreme court thinks, bunch of ghouls. Here's hoping a meteor shaped like an enormous ass just crushes them into chunky ragu.
 

PAFenix

Unshakable Resolve
Member
Nov 21, 2019
14,812
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, meanwhile, said she was "kind of shocked" that an attorney for Idaho appeared to hedge when asked whether the state would allow abortions in cases like those. Attorney Joshua N. Turner responded that doctors can use their "good faith" medical judgment under Idaho's life-saving exception, but Barrett continued to press: "What if the prosecutor thinks differently?"

Hitting a little too close to you and your daughters, eh ACB?
 

Doomguy Fieri

Member
Nov 3, 2017
5,281
This is obviously awful for American women, but it also kind of rocks how the GOP wants to talk about anything except abortion bans and the Republican Supreme Court is just salivating at the idea of putting a real nationwide ban in place. Whoops, the monster doesn't follow directions, who could have predicted this turn of events?
 

JigglesBunny

Prophet of Truth
Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
31,231
Chicago
250
 

Omegasquash

Member
Oct 31, 2017
6,223
The right wing justices are such fucking awful ghouls.

Their agenda is clear. Create a country in which women are forced to bear children, live in poverty, and create cheap labor for profit extraction. All under "won't someone think of the unborn child".

And the wellness and life of the mother be damned. They're just seen as birthing vehicles by these monsters.
 

The Silver

Member
Oct 28, 2017
10,736
If Trump wins again we can have a scenario where all 3 or any combo of Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayer have to retire giving Trump more picks to ruin the court for generations longer.